User talk:84.13.10.123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Who are you

Ok, now who are you?? And if I block your Opal UK account, who's going to get caught in the autoblock? - Alison ☺ 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would you wish to block me? (Genuine, not rhetorical question.) I am not aware of having made any incivil or disruptive edits from this IP address. If I am wrong in this opinion I will, of course, desist in any pattern of editing you categorise as inappropriate since you are an administrator I respect.84.13.10.123 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious who you are. What I don't understand is why you're using an IP address to post messages to others' talk pages, as you are. Read WP:SOCK, esp. "it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts, or to edit as IP, rather than logging in to your account, in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest (a legitimate interest excludes wikistalking) in reviewing your contributions". Would you agree? - Alison ☺ 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is indeed the case, it seems I may have received incorrect advice.
I thought it was permissible, for example, to use a different account if you were using a computer that was not your own and you had a fear that keystroke logging might be in place to trap your normal account password. I also understood it was permissible to use a different account from usual if there were at least one of the reasons outlined in WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts. It's not crucial either way. I can just stop editing until I return home next week. It seems a bit daft to exercise a right to vanish for just a week, create a new account, vanish :on that one and then pop up again next week using my usual highly non-anonymous account. Goodnight. 84.13.10.123 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It all comes down to intent, really. Given that you edited as an IP and made controversial edits, then logged in and continued on (yes, I checked). That kinda doesn't make sense, given your rationale above. As for multiple *accounts*, well yes. That's why I have User:AliClick and have already declared that one well in advance so there's not avoiding scrutiny - Alison ☺ 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand. Which was my controversial edit(s)? I thought all my edits were informative and referenced and civil and pertinent. I'm not wishing to be argumentative here and, as I said above, if there is any specific area or areas you do not wish me to edit until I get home, just say the word.84.13.10.123 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've yet to see any rationale for what you did. The whole away-from-home / keylogger thing doesn't ring true, sorry. You've already logged into your account today (I know). So why didn't you sign your name even though you were editing under an IP? I really don't know what your trying to do here, Frank. Care to fill me in on what's really going on? - Alison ☺ 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, hopefully now you understand (check your e-mail) that I just logged on for a quick signed reply to Padraig with my cramped and tiny keypad WiFi mobile (then I continued with the alien computer with normal keyboard since both you and super-sleuth [should?] be fully aware by now of the articles I like to edit) - as far as I know, Padraig might not have been aware of who I was when I addressed him by name. And I'd really prefer it if you contacted me directly rather than assume bad faith. Now it's 2 in the morning here so I really, really must say Goodnight!84.13.10.123 01:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre Message

Why should I be aware of that, if I may ask? I am only tangentially involved in this case and I aim to stay that way. It's for the arbcom to decide what to do, not me. My only input would be to say that many, many people are at fault here and blame perhaps should be spread among numerous participants. Please sign in and sign your posts in future. Badgerpatrol 01:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Because you have been listed as an involved party at the ArbCom case.
I hope you manage to achieve your goals.
I do not subscribe to the suggestion that a layer of calumny should be evenly spread over all "participants".
I do endeavour to sign all my posts, but I have not risked compromising my account or password by signing in on a computer I do not control this week (as I have attempted to explain above). If you wish to mail me directly at w.frank.b[AT]gmail.com I will be pleased to set your mind at rest. Please be aware that, this week there may be delays in my response.84.13.10.123 09:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to email you at work, and to be frank I'm rather surprised at being listed as a party in the arbcom case. They can decide the best course of action, should they choose to pursue it. Badgerpatrol 13:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:BrownHairedGirl

Do not re-factor my comments under seperate headings. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

If you'd like to play games Frank instead of improving the encylopedia, perhaps you'd like to play a game where you answer some questions. Nothing tricky, just ones about your editing. I'll summarise the events first, just so you fully understand the questions.

  • Diff. On 17 May an unsourced addition that failed NPOV was added to an article.
  • Diff. 20 minutes later I reverted it with a clear edit summary of rv - good faith edit, but unsourced and fails WP:NPOV"
  • Diff. Two months later (on 22 July to be accurate, I know you like your accuracy) you added back the unsourced information.

So, now we both know the sequence of events, it's time for the questions:

  1. Why did you add back the information I removed?
  2. Did you read the information you added before doing so?
  3. If you did read the information, didn't phrases like "The trial itself proved something of a farce" and "Their testimony, when it was given, was rubbished" strike you as being POV?

I look forward to your answers, answer here seeing as you can't edit my talk page, and I'd also appreciate you not editing my talk page when you're logged into as well. One Night In Hackney303 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bowdlerising terrorism and diminishing the details of which innocent victims were blown to shreds and reducing the precision and helpful categorisation of our encyclopaedia may be games to you, 303, but I certainly don't play games with my contributions.
I'm deadly serious.
I find it indicative of your biassed editing and fanatical POV agenda that you don't even want to see any discussion taking place on your own user page.
However, I'll answer you here as you requested. I'm an inclusionist. I thought that the language was fine and the references were certainly as good as those for your own assertions that civilians have never been targeted by PIRA. If you read Spanish, you'll see that the contemporary Columbian newspaper reports described the trial as exactly that: fueron un sinsentido del principio al fin. The fact that these words are antithetical to my own point of view that they were not on vacation in Columbia is neither here nor there - it was a significant stance in Columbia that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a charge never mind achieve a conviction. Frank84.13.10.123 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Erm, what reference? Diff. The entire text that was added was unsourced. You thought the language was fine? Do you know who actually wrote that? Link, author one Danny Morrison. Do you know who Danny Morrison is? Danny Morrison - Sinn Féin activist. So you added a Sinn Féin activist's opinion of the trial as fact (which I had removed as POV, funny that isn't it?!) and you claim I am biased? I suggest more research, and carefully reading what articles actually say in future. The WP:NPOV policy you claim to hold so dear (despite hardly ever having produced a source to back up a single addition you've made to any article, and removing sources that contradicted what you thought an article should say) was discarded when you added back that text. One Night In Hackney303 18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me with some other editor(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palmerston_North&diff=prev&oldid=153732609
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson%2C_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=153553742
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson%2C_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=153406379
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horatio_Nelson%2C_1st_Viscount_Nelson&diff=153766945&oldid=153422842
No, I'm talking about Irish republican articles. Got any diffs for you adding sources to back up text you add to those? One Night In Hackney303 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

“Who here really believes that we can win the war through the ballot-box?” Then he paused and went on “But will anyone here object if with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in this hand we take power in Ireland?”Danny Morrison --Domer48 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many IP addresses and user names Frank are you working under?

I have a question? How many IP addresses and user names Frank are you working under. Have you declared them all, and to whom? Or is the list part of your "Team" edits--Domer48 18:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently, One.
Have I declared them all? Yes.
To whom? At least one administrator and one bureaucrat.
My user name isn't "Frank", it's W. Frank - 'cos Frank was already taken.
Any suspicions - just apply for a check user. Good afternoon.84.13.10.123 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Just one, is that including this one! --Domer48 18:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Trick question, eh? (edit conflicts - one question at a time)
[1], are your really sure, about just one. --Domer48 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The lad's got a lot of material to wade thru' so you can't blame him for being confused - just for revealing his rather messy and incompetent thought processes in public rather than keeping his unsourced hypotheses on his own hard drive.
Now, Goodnight! W. Frank talk ✉  19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Frank after all your pontificating on "teams" editing WP it appears you are a one man team. BigDunc 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::Appearances can be very deceptive then. Except in cases where I've inadvertently forgotten to log in (and forgotten that I've forgotten), I've only ever in my entire life time used two declared accounts on the English language Wikipedia: this non-anonymous, non-pseudonymous one and my usual one referenced in my signature appended. Now as mentioned on the user page, this will be the last edit I make here. W. Frank talk ✉  13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption and POV-pushing

Hi there, W.Frank. I've received complaints from a number of editors now that you are POV-pushing on a number of articles re. the PIRA/IRA issue, as well as other issues. You are also making insinuations regarding your fellow-editors which are needlessly inflammatory and, given the divisive areas you choose to edit in, are beginning to be disruptive. Note also that if you begin edit-warring over this stuff, you will be blocked under the three-revert rule. I suggest you review that policy closely, noting that it does not automatically grant you three-reversions per day and you may actually be blocked providing an administrator considers you being sufficiently disruptive. Note also that using multiple accounts and addresses, as you are, will also be taken into account here - Alison ☺ 19:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just come across a couple of your edits, W.Frank, and I urge you to work within the bounds of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Insulting other editors will not make your points in discussion any clearer, they instead could earn you and this IP a block from the project. SirFozzie 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Be a bit more helpful and give me the diffs (I assume that you've given similar warnings to the other editors involved?)84.13.10.123 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's one in my copy buffer, just for starters. There are plenty more - Alison ☺ 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
W. Frank there is a discussion and agreement HERE which you refused to take part in and continued to edit war on many different articles over this.--padraig 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[2] As well. SirFozzie 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All right. Quit with the "hackneyed" thing, please. It's not even remotely witty - Alison ☺ 21:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very old, [3], and why you should sign your posts. --Domer48 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is enough now. Frank, please cease with thois PIRA stuff unless you first gain consensus on a article talk page to change it. Otherwise, I'm afraid that the circumstances no longer justify tolerating further disruption from you and you will be blocked. Please indicate below that you understand this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)